No abstract

No abstract

Background: Different mechanical properties have been suggested for metallic bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in comparison to polymeric BVS. We aim to evaluate the acute mechanical performance of Magmaris ® scaffold in comparison to Absorb ® . Materials and Methods: Two groups of 10 coronary lesions treated with Magmaris ® and Absorb ® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts) were compared. In all cases, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images were acquired after scaffold deployment. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared, including OCT evaluations. Results: No baseline clinical or angiographic significant differences were found between groups. The most common indication for revascularization was effort angina (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45) with no ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) cases. Main target artery was left anterior descending, with a mean vessel diameter of 3.46 ± 0.23 in Absorb ® and 3.52 ± 0.19mm in Magmaris ® groups (p = 0.56). All cases underwent pre-and post-dilatation with a procedural success rate of 100%. OCT analyses showed larger scaffold and vessel diameters in Magmaris ® group: 3.11 ± 0.38 mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 and 4.12 ± 0.51 mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.04. Despite the application of slightly higher postdilatation pressures to Magmaris ® devices (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), significantly lower percentages of disrupted and malapposed struts were identified within Magmaris ® scaffolds (0.15% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.03 and 1.06% vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). No cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization was reported in a 30-day follow-up. Conclusion: Mechanical properties of Magmaris ® scaffold allow achieving larger vessel and scaffold diameters in a safe manner, with lower rates of malapposition and scaffold disruption.

Background: Different mechanical properties have been suggested for metallic bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in comparison to polymeric BVS. We aim to evaluate the acute mechanical performance of Magmaris ® scaffold in comparison to Absorb ® . Materials and Methods: Two groups of 10 coronary lesions treated with Magmaris ® and Absorb ® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts) were compared. In all cases, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images were acquired after scaffold deployment. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared, including OCT evaluations. Results: No baseline clinical or angiographic significant differences were found between groups. The most common indication for revascularization was effort angina (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45) with no ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) cases. Main target artery was left anterior descending, with a mean vessel diameter of 3.46 ± 0.23 in Absorb ® and 3.52 ± 0.19mm in Magmaris ® groups (p = 0.56). All cases underwent pre-and post-dilatation with a procedural success rate of 100%. OCT analyses showed larger scaffold and vessel diameters in Magmaris ® group: 3.11 ± 0.38 mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 and 4.12 ± 0.51 mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.04. Despite the application of slightly higher postdilatation pressures to Magmaris ® devices (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), significantly lower percentages of disrupted and malapposed struts were identified within Magmaris ® scaffolds (0.15% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.03 and 1.06% vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). No cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization was reported in a 30-day follow-up. Conclusion: Mechanical properties of Magmaris ® scaffold allow achieving larger vessel and scaffold diameters in a safe manner, with lower rates of malapposition and scaffold disruption.